The Complainant is Man Group plc, United Kingdom (“United Kingdom” or “UK”), represented by Dehns, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Man Am, United States of America (“United States” or “US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2020. On September 11, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. informed the Complainant that the Domain Name is currently registered with the Registrar. On September 14, 2020, the Complainant indicated that “the registrant of the man-am.com domain name has indeed transferred this domain name to a new Registrar (i.e. webnic.cc) in between us preparing and filing the UDRP Complaint”. On September 17, 2020, the Center requested an amendment regarding the Registrar. On September 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 15, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 17, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 17, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 28, 2020. On the same day, the Complaint sent an email communication to the Center. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 18, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 19, 2020. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on October 29, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an investment management company. The Complainant was founded in 1783. Over time, the Complainant gradually diversified into financial services, and now has over 25 years of experience of global investment management. The Complainant provides a range of funds for private and institutional clients, and manages USD 108.3 billion in funds (as at June 30, 2020) for its global clients, making it one of the world’s largest publicly traded hedge fund companies. The Complainant and its subsidiaries/related companies own a large number of registered trademarks, such as UK Trade Mark Registration M MAN No. 2547917 registered on September 17, 2010 and European Union Trade Mark designation of International trademark registration M MAN No. 1046727 registered on June 22, 2010. The Complainant, either directly or through its various subsidiaries/related companies, provides its financial services to clients in multiple countries, and has offices in the UK, Ireland, US, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, China, Japan and Australia. The Domain Name seems to be registered on June 16, 2020. At the time of the Complaint and the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name redirected to an inactive webpage. However, the Complainant submitted evidence of the use of the Domain Name for a website purporting to be one of MAN Asset Management, and the use of the Domain Name for what appears to be a fraudulent email scheme. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations and goodwill in its trademarks. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The only difference is the inclusion of the word “am” that is a common English dictionary word, and, furthermore, it is often used as an abbreviation for “America” or an abbreviation for “asset management”. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent previously operated a website as a clone of the website of the Complainant’s competitors TAM Asset Management. The Complainant believes the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent’s website has made reference to the registered address of the Complainant’s subsidiary, Man Asset Management (Ireland) Ltd. to further deceive consumers. The Respondent has created an email account from the Domain Name and used it fraudulently, to pass itself off as the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent has transferred the Domain Name to another registrar in an attempt to avoid the dispute with the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademarks M MAN. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name comprises of the dominant feature of the Complainant’s trademark with the inclusion of the word “am”. “Am” is indeed a common English dictionary word, it could also be an abbreviation of “asset management”, and it does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel ignores the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”, section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not bona fide. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name is similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Based on the case file, and in particular the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, the Panel finds it likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a website purporting to be MAN Asset Management offering financial, investment and asset management services. The Respondent’s website has also made reference to the registered address of the Complainant’s subsidiary. Accordingly, the Panel believes the Respondent has registered the Domain Name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the Respondent has created an email account from the Domain Name and used it fraudulently. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: November 5, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy